July 1, 2010

Earlier, I showed you Drudge's "heat is on" picture of Al Gore with a picture of Obama slightly below, wiping his brow, and a picture of Biden gesturing — arms spread and palms out — just like Gore. Gore was at the top of the page, Obama was in the left column, and Biden was in the center column. A little later in the day, this went up in the third column:

Obama's upstretched hands are a bit different from Gore's and Biden's, but the resonance is there. What's also notable are the little wings "on" his hands — actually, probably, eagle decorations on top of flagpoles set up behind him. Then, a little below that, there's Eric Holder photographed in front of an eagle in such a way as to make it look like wings grow out of his neck. This is all, I'm sure, intentional — typical Drudge fun with photos. We might call it "Drudgery," but I'd prefer a portmanteau of Drudge + comedy: Drudgedy.

And quite aside from all that. Those 2 stories in red type are pretty important:

Both of those deserve separate blog posts. Forgive me for presenting them as if they are nothing more than afterthoughts. Please discuss them in the comments, and I will, if I can, write better posts later and frontpage some comments.

The Black Panther case is just about as embarrassing as anything could be in American politics. I thought I was watching an election in Somalia. Disgusting. I never expected it to be accepted and brushed aside in this country. Do we really mind racists anymore or is it just a name we call each other.

From what I've read, the Black Panther case was about Blacks standing around looking tough and threatening to other Blacks. That's why it ain't going anywhere. It's kinda like gun control. As long as Blacks are unable to own a gun, and the simple fact that it's Blacks that are killing other Blacks, gun control seems like a good idea.

The latest method used by the Lawless One appears to be simply refusing to enforce laws. That becomes in effect an Obama veto of laws leaving our country Lawless. Sort of like his Lawlessly ordering a stop to the oil industry's operations in the Gulf, and ignoring a Federal Judge's injunction. Will he next start to confiscate private property like Chavez? A cap and tax for wind-mill subsidies to be paid to his friends while crippling Coal production is also corruption with a capital C, but at least that has an appearance of lawfulness.

The Elin Wood division of property is by a mandatory 50/50 division of what was acquired during the marriage. This is Florida law, and it applies even if she was the one screwing 161 men during the marriage while Tiger stayed home faithfully with the kids.

I recognize that African-Americans in this country have been disadvantaged by the history of slavery in a way different than other groups that have suffered discrimination.

However, the introductin of race-based processes into the fabric our our law and our institutional practices is an abomination that corrupts the basis of equal and fairminded community, jeopardizes our belief in the law as an agent of justice, and poisons relationsips bewteen members of different skin-color groups.

What Holder and others in his Justice Department have apparently done with New Black Panther case is enraging and profoundly destructive.

One last point: affirmative action as carried to the extremes that are now commonplaces in law, schools, employment, and the behavior of juries is really a form of African-Americans transferring responsibility for their own welfare to whites. In other words, it continues the fundamental psychological relationbship of slavery and is a historical continuation of that process.

Let us work to be truly skin-color blind; but in the meanwhile, let us in our law and instituional practices be as color blind as we can be.

I recognize that African-Americans in this country have been disadvantaged by the history of slavery in a way different than other groups that have suffered discrimination.

However, the introduction of race-based processes into the fabric our our law and our institutional practices is an abomination that corrupts the basis of equal and fairminded community, jeopardizes our belief in the law as an agent of justice, and poisons relationsips bewteen members of different skin-color groups.

What Holder and others in his Justice Department have apparently done with New Black Panther case is enraging and profoundly destructive.

One last point: affirmative action as carried to the extremes that are now commonplaces in law, schools, employment, and the behavior of juries is really a form of African-Americans transferring responsibility for their own welfare to whites. In other words, it continues the fundamental psychological relationbship of slavery and is a historical continuation of that process.

Let us work to be truly skin-color blind; but in the meanwhile, let us in our law and instituional practices be as color blind as we can be.

AJ...I believe that the next Congress will need 60 votes in the Senate to override a veto of the repeal of legislation by this Democrat Congress. So we must pray for a resolute Supreme Court if we want to keep our Constitutional form of government. I am hopeful that Kagan will have the chutzpah to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution.

GMay - it doesn't matter that you aren't buying. Tiger isn't selling - he is required to give half to his soon-to-be-ex-wife. Elin's lawyers did some nice financial forensics and Tiger now has to pay the piper. Hope all that fooling around was worth it.

Hey! Surely a Con Law professor -- from the U of Chicago, no less -- knows what is and what isn't enforceable. And if he doesn't, I'm certain that his Vice President, also a Con Law professor, would be able to weigh in.

Er, is it for certain that either of them have actually gotten around to reading the law?

1. AZ's law is "unenforceable", he says? If so, it would have to be for one of two reasons: federal preemption or inherent unconstitutionality (because any enforcement would require racial discrimination). Neither seems persuasive.

AZ is not attempting to regulate immigration and has not intruded into an area reserved for Congress. Instead, AZ has made conduct that is already a federal crime punishable as a state crime as well. Normally, to succeed, a preemption argument has to show either that Congress intended to exclude any state regulation in the area, or that the state law interferes with accomplishing some goal or aspect of a comprehensive federal scheme.

Here, while federal immigration law is certainly a comprehensive scheme, I don't see how AZ's law interferes with it in any way. Instead, it seems complementary to the federal scheme. Nor has AZ attempted to define whether anyone is in the US illegally -- instead, the AZ statute just picks up where the federal statutes leave off.

As for the idea that enforcement of the AZ statute inevitably involvse racial discrimination, it's hard to imagine a court's accepting that argument as a facial challenge to the AZ law. At best, it might support an 'as applied' challenge on some specific factual record. But I don't see how it could possibly render the AZ statute unenforceable in all circumstances.

2. That the Black Panther case was dropped for PC reasons seems obvious. The video on its face established that there was a factual basis for the DOJ complaint. The New Black Panthers had already defaulted, and all DOJ had to do was submit a proposed default judgment.

Nor is there anything surprising in the idea that the Obama DOJ takes the view that the prohibitions in the Voting Rights Act does not apply to members of racial minorities. That's just an echo of the argument, often made by lefties in affirmative action cases, that anti-discrimination statutes are aimed only at abuses by powerful social groups (whites, men) against the powerless (everyone else). On that understanding, the powerless cannot violate anti-discrimination laws.

The argument is, frankly, incomprehensible unless you start with the premise that social groups rather than individuals or individual conduct is what these statutes are all about. From that premise, proponents want to conclude that the legal analysis has to turn on one's social group (race, ethnicity, etc.).

That argument has not fared well even in the affirmative action context where it was invented (Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger). It has not improved with age or repeition.

1. AZ's law is "unenforceable", he says? If so, it would have to be for one of two reasons: federal preemption or inherent unconstitutionality (because any enforcement would require racial discrimination). Neither seems persuasive.

AZ is not attempting to regulate immigration and has not intruded into an area reserved for Congress. Instead, AZ has made conduct that is already a federal crime punishable as a state crime as well. Normally, to succeed, a preemption argument has to show either that Congress intended to exclude any state regulation in the area, or that the state law interferes with accomplishing some goal or aspect of a comprehensive federal scheme.

Here, while federal immigration law is certainly a comprehensive scheme, I don't see how AZ's law interferes with it in any way. Instead, it seems complementary to the federal scheme. Nor has AZ attempted to define whether anyone is in the US illegally -- instead, the AZ statute just picks up where the federal statutes leave off.

As for the idea that enforcement of the AZ statute inevitably involvse racial discrimination, it's hard to imagine a court's accepting that argument as a facial challenge to the AZ law. At best, it might support an 'as applied' challenge on some specific factual record. But I don't see how it could possibly render the AZ statute unenforceable in all circumstances.

2. That the Black Panther case was dropped for PC reasons seems obvious. The video on its face established that there was a factual basis for the DOJ complaint. The New Black Panthers had already defaulted, and all DOJ had to do was submit a proposed default judgment.

Nor is there anything surprising in the idea that the Obama DOJ takes the view that the prohibitions in the Voting Rights Act does not apply to members of racial minorities. That's just an echo of the argument, often made by lefties in affirmative action cases, that anti-discrimination statutes are aimed only at abuses by powerful social groups (whites, men) against the powerless (everyone else). On that understanding, the powerless cannot violate anti-discrimination laws.

The argument is, frankly, incomprehensible unless you start with the premise that social groups rather than individuals or individual conduct is what these statutes are all about. From that premise, proponents want to conclude that the legal analysis has to turn on one's social group (race, ethnicity, etc.).

That argument has not fared well even in the affirmative action context where it was invented (Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger). It has not improved with age or repeition.

GMay - not my job. Tiger is tight and cheap. He would not give up one cent more than the law required. Her lawyers were diligent, no doubt very well paid, and found property and holdings that, they claim, pushed his net worth to $1.5 billion. Family law being what it is, she gets half, he gets half, show's over, move along. If he is paying that much, that is all the proof I need that he was worth twice that much.

As I've said time and time again I'm not a supporter of AZ SB 1070. At the same time I continue to be astounded at the counter-arguments. And now "unenforceable".

So as I understand the law a Phoenix policeman apprehend a suspect for a related issue and ask, based on suspicion (i.e. traffic violation of a large white, windowless cargo van but with only the driver in the vehicle) ask about evidence of citizenship. If there was none and a reasonable suspicion of non-citizen status the policeman could bring the subject to ICE.

So is our president saying the present federal immigration law is unenforceable?

This is getting crazy with politicians on one side suggesting cutting off the electricity to non-citizens and folks on the other side claiming we're all racists.

The wings coming out of The Zero's sleeve remind of some I saw in the main title to a movie - they were attached to phalluses. So, AllenS is right, after all.

traditionalguy said...

The latest method used by the Lawless One appears to be simply refusing to enforce laws.

If you go back to the 60s, when the Lefties were pushing the idea that you had the obligation to break what they viewed as an immoral law, this is where they were headed. The Demos have been doing this for years.

As for The Zero and Holder, I'm reminded of the saying the freedmen had after the Civil War, "De bottom rail's on de top an' we's gwine to keep it dere".

18 months in an obama is floundering. I am amazed how tone deaf he is on just about every issue he brings up. Wrong on the Stimulus, wrong on healthcare, followed up by immigration. Just put the guy out of his misery this November, its obvious he's all done.

So as I understand the law a Phoenix policeman apprehend a suspect for a related issue and ask, based on suspicion (i.e. traffic violation of a large white, windowless cargo van but with only the driver in the vehicle) ask about evidence of citizenship. If there was none and a reasonable suspicion of non-citizen status the policeman could bring the subject to ICE.

Now to preface this, I am not a fan of the Phoenix PD. But that is a discussion for another day.

What is likely to happen is that the cop sees something a bit questionable. Possibly people riding in the bed of a pickup (surprisingly common on the freeways in Phoenix, and mostly with Hispanics in the back). It is one of those things that is illegal, but not something that they spend a lot of time policing.

As with all traffic stops, the cop will ask for the driver's driver's license. AZDL? Done. Ditto for other states, etc. that require proof of residency or citizenship. Otherwise, the cop may get into the regular questions about where do you live? Is the address on this license correct? Then, if they are not that fluent in English, dress as Mexican (apparently those who do this a lot can tell at a distance), they would ask about citizenship and whether they are in the country illegally.

The reason for these other questions first is to ask those other questions first is that they usually do so anyway, and they help develop probable cause (or reasonable suspicion in this case). By this time, the cops pretty much know whether the driver is here legally or not. Not guaranteed, but strong suspicion.

Despite not trusting the Phoenix PD, I just cannot believe that there will be very many cases of people being detained very long if they are citizens or here legally. By the time that anyone is detained, the cops are going to pretty much know that they are illegals. Otherwise, it just isn't worth the paper work.

Maybe you all came help me reconcile these two items. From the Daily Beast:

The speech was also a sop to the unions, in its attack on businesses that seek to stay competitive by hiring illegal immigrants,

and this (from the Az Republic)The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

As for his argument that the AZ law is unenforceable, it sounds a lot as though he is refusing to enforce the the law, which is a direct violation of his oath. If he thinks it's bad law he should go to court to get it annulled. Otherwise, he's derelict in his duty.

The dismissal of the default judgment in the New Black Panther case wasn't racially motivated. The NBPs clearly intended to discourage anyone not supporting Obama from voting. Thus it was political, not racist. Just like the practice of passing out "walking around" money in some jurisdictions.

If you - yes you - work to show Obama supporters how he tried to mislead them, that might have an impact on this issue. You can do that by leaving comments on blogs and MSM sites, through Twitter and Facebook, and so on. Your goal should be to convince *his supporters* that he isn't trustworthy.

Well, looks like President Barely and his party apparatchiks are at it again. Post-moderning America for the sake being post-racial. AZ law is unenforceable because it's inherently racist, according to the leftard-in-chief. Post racial. Eric Holder, according to this DOJ lawyer isn't pursuing the New Black Panthers that intimidated voters on VIDEO TAPE because it's to racially charged. Post racial.

Yeah, this is all the left can hang it's hat on. November can't come soon enough you dumb oreo bastard.

gk1 said...Wrong on the Stimulus, wrong on healthcare, followed up by immigration. Just put the guy out of his misery this November, its obvious he's all done.

Well, he rammed through his healthcare and his government-funded student loans, and he rammed through his stimulus bill, so I wouldn't laugh him off. However, he doesn't even have the Comprehensive Immigration Bill ready that he's already mad at Republicans for not being on board with. Or is he just planning to dust off McCain-Kennedy?(Hey, if he does, someone should make the new born-again-border-controller McCain promise to vote against his own bill.)

The president attended, for 20 years,an anti-white, ant-Semitic, anti-American church, then he appoints a black attorney general who says that when it comes to race Americans are cowards. This after America elects its first black president. And you wonder if the panther dismissal might be racial.

It is definitely an odd coincidence that the last two Democrat Presidents (who were both swooned over by the ladies) were abandoned by their fathers as children. Definitely a psycho-sexual connection to Leftism/the nanny state, etc. I don't care to really delve into it, but there's something distinctly needy (not to say creepy) running through the Dem subconscious.

Re: "unenforceable" borders. You guys just don't get it. Enforcing laws on fallible human beings in an imperfect world is just so unenlightened. Progressive "solutions" are all about root causes. People cross the border because they want to, and employers hire them because they want to. It's a violation of human rights to stop people from doing what they want to do. Racist, really.

If we refrain from doing ugly, racist things like enforcing immigration law, both sides of the border will eventually reach an equilibrium of poverty, corruption, and disorder, and no one will want to cross the border anymore. Problem solved* without having to profile anybody! Sane people know this is the only way.

For one country to be wealthier in goods, political system, and social capital is unfair. Racist, really. So enforcing immigration law is racist in even deeper ways than mere profiling. The One (and most everybody inside the Beltway, R or D) understands this, why can't you, you flyover troglodytes?

*Well, employers will never stop wanting cheaper labor, so as long as there are still poorer people in the world, it'll be impossible to prevent their importation, too. Impossible and racist.

Fen: I'm telling you, there is ZERO incentive to play by the rules anymore. You're better off taking the law into your own hands.

It seems to be a law of human nature that when you've enjoyed order, the rule of law, and civilization for a few generations, you begin to take it all as given. In Western nations it seems that the corrupt leadership is serenely confident that the existing citizenry will go right on adhering to the old standards of lawfulness and civility, in the face of more and more flagrant abuses of power by the Great and Good, and more and more abusive and repressive behavior toward the law-abiding.

Ironically, if they really thought we were the violent animals they're always accusing us (middle America) of being, they wouldn't in a million years dare play us for chumps the way they're doing now.

Re: "unenforceable" borders. You guys just don't get it. Enforcing laws on fallible human beings in an imperfect world is just so unenlightened. Progressive "solutions" are all about root causes. People cross the border because they want to, and employers hire them because they want to. It's a violation of human rights to stop people from doing what they want to do. Racist, really.

If we refrain from doing ugly, racist things like enforcing immigration law, both sides of the border will eventually reach an equilibrium of poverty, corruption, and disorder, and no one will want to cross the border anymore. Problem solved* without having to profile anybody! Sane people know this is the only way.

For one country to be wealthier in goods, political system, and social capital is unfair. Racist, really. So enforcing immigration law is racist in even deeper ways than mere profiling. The One (and most everybody inside the Beltway, R or D) understands this, why can't you, you flyover troglodytes?

*Well, employers will never stop wanting cheaper labor, so as long as there are still poorer people in the world, it'll be impossible to prevent their importation, too. Impossible and racist.

Obama said:"Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols," Mr. Obama said. "It won't work."

There he goes again straw manning his opponent and mischaracterizing their stance. Who ever said the ONLY way to solve immigration problems is with fences and border patrols. For all his reputation as a gifted and precise speaker he seems to rely an awful lot on impresise and clumsy generalities (though I realize this is his goal, as these statements are meant to be subtle attacks on his opponents ideas only they are so clumsy they are so easily shown to be straw men attacks). So Obama, I would fully grant that having a fence would not be the ONLY solution for our porous border. It doesn't mean that it's still not one of the critical components in addressing the porous border. Saying it's not the ONLY solution doesn't mean that therefore not building a fence is the solution, which seems to be his argument.